By Salama A Salama I came back from vacation to the same political scene. When I left, a few weeks ago, Cairo was abuzz with debate over civil society's monitoring of elections. Judges were discussing guarantees for proper supervision, and the media was contemplating neutral coverage. I came back to find 10 candidates -- hardly all credible -- campaigning for the presidency. But the issues of monitoring and neutrality don't seem to have gone away. If anything, this signifies the fragility of the experience and its want of rigour. Shortly, the voters will have their say, which will come as no surprise. Abroad, the picture looks somewhat fuzzy. International media are not giving Egyptian elections the sort of coverage elections in the Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan and Lebanon received. This is because of the widespread and hopefully wrong impression that the elections will make no difference in the way this country is run. The best that the elections may achieve, many believe, is to set in motion changes that may lead to democracy in years to come. The political vitality now seen in Egypt -- with debate and rallies conducted in a climate of freedom and excitement -- astonishes Egyptians themselves. And after 50 years of stagnation and repression, many find it hard to take any of this seriously. This is perhaps the beginning of something good, but not unless fairness and neutrality are guaranteed. There are restrictions on a full-fledged political process in this country, restrictions thrown in by advocates of the status quo, restrictions that have been integrated into the amendment of Article 76. This should not obscure the fact that Egyptians, after a long time of apathy, are experiencing a revived interest in politics. For a long time, intellectuals and ordinary people alike thought that the president's office is something to be filled by an army officer, or through bequest, or through a military coup. The idea of free choice is relatively novel. Looking at the full half of the glass, one is tempted to think that -- however incomplete the current process is -- democracy is attainable. This is why the elections committee needs to inspire confidence and enforce fairness. The committee should not stick to the letter of its mandate or attempt to monopolise the scene. On the contrary, it should open the door to civil society to monitor voting. In doing so, the committee would be filling the empty half of the proverbial glass. It would be performing a historic task of raising standards, paving the road to credible parliamentary elections. The committee can restore confidence to a majority with little faith in the entire political process. The programmes of the 10 candidates -- with the exception of the National Democratic Party and perhaps the Wafd -- are hardly worth analysing. Some of the slogans, concerning corruption and unemployment, are trite or outright unrealistic. Candidates of smaller parties -- those that went into the foray just to get the LE0.5 million promised to all contestants -- have little to say. Constitutional and political reform has not been discussed in full, and candidates have generally failed to offer a timetable for their promises. Nonetheless, there is one candidate whose obsession with palm reading and dream interpretation has been cause for occasional merriment. One major obstacle to democracy is the outdated voters' lists. A large section of eligible voters have no voting cards, which undermines the credibility of the whole thing. The elections committee should have been thinking of that problem. If democracy is a building of many floors, remember this: we're still on the first floor.
